President Obama-Writing Assign.#6:Part 3

    President Barack Obama expressed his point of view on the issue of same-sex marriage by saying that it should be legalized for Gays and Lesbians to have the right to get married just as it is the same for heterosexual couples. Even though some states have recognized that homosexual couples should have the same rights as straight couples, it is still a very controversial issue in the United States. It is still controversial because some Americans strongly believed that the "true" definition of marriage is between a man and a woman and they believe that it should stay that way for a very long time. In May 2012, the voters in North Carolina voted for a constitutional ban on same-sex marriage, partnerships, and civil unions. The voters of North Carolina voted for a constitutional amendment on the ban for same-sex couples to be married, or to have a civil  because the bible claims that it is a sin for men to have sexual relations with other men. Now they have a prohibition on Gays and Lesbians to be involved in partnerships, so they can express their love for one another. What John Stuart Mill would say about this particular issue is that they should have the same rights as heterosexual couples. It should not have anything to do with religion or anyone else's personal opinion on who has the right to get married. Patrick Devlin would argue that it has something to do with the decency on the values of the family and they are afraid that it would break down the structure of the families and the rest of society.

Writing Assign.#6-John Stuart Mill part 1

    According to John Stuart Mill, the major problem for a democracy is that government can often times influence its citizens by using coercion in order to get what they want. The government can create laws by deciding what people can or cannot do, for example, it would be against the law to steal from someone they know or complete stranger for any reason, other than getting the things that they want or need for survival. If that individual is caught, he or she will be severely punished by serving some time in jail. This can be viewed as a person's liberty being unjustified because that person is taking someone else's property without the other person's permission. Another example of an individuals liberty being justified when it comes to self-defense. If someone was trying to hurt another person by stealing or committing attempted murder, he or she has the right to defend themselves if they are being violated by someone they know or do not know. That is true for every human being and for animals as well. The existing laws that would violate Mill's principle is denying a person's right to marry someone from a different cultural or religious background, or even of the same sex. Nowadays, it is legal for people of different races and religions to get married, but it is still very difficult for homosexuals. Even though some states have made same-sex marriage legal, other states still believe that marriage is between a man and a woman. I agree with this because it is the 21st century and we need to be respectful of other people's beliefs and the lives that they choose to live. It is not a perfect world, but change is slowly coming. The three regions of human liberty that Mill identified were recognizing political liberties or rights, establishing constitutional checks of balances, and the limited powers in most European countries. The first region was about recognizing certain immunities so it can be regarded as breaching the duties of the rulers to make sure that no one goes against the person in charge. Establishing the balance of checks so that nothing is being over ruled by one another. And finally the limitation of power coming from most European countries to maintain order in their society. Mill justifies the freedom of expression by saying that every human being should have the right to express their opinions without the fear of persecution, whether their views are popular or not. Even though freedom of expression is protected by the First Amendment, however; there may be a case where freedoms of expressions are protected by the First Amendment. For instance, there is a case where it is not acceptable to yell out the word, "fire" in a crowded room or a movie theatre when there is actually nothing burning inside of the theatre. It is just used by someone who may not no any better and just wanted to pull a "harmless" prank on a lot of people. I honestly think that freedom of expression should be unlimited, as long as it does not have the intention to hurt anybody. It is one thing to say something, but it is another thing to act on those intentions. Devlin justified that laws enforce moral standards by saying that it is used to make sure that people behave in a positive manner and try not to hurt others for any reason.